THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Taylor, unless you are going to conclude this
particular part, I think we had better adjourn now.
COL. TAYLOR: I will conclude with two affidavits, Your Honor, but it
will take probably 10 minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, if that will conclude it, go on.
COL. TAYLOR: It will conclude it. Firstly, Affidavit Number 24, which
becomes Exhibit USA-565, Document Number 3718-PS. This is by Colonel
Bogislav von Bonin, who, at the beginning of the Russian campaign, was a
staff officer with the 17th Panzer Division:
“At the beginning of the Russian campaign, I was the first
General Staff officer of the 17th Panzer Division which had the
mission of driving across the Bug, north of Brest-Litovsk.
Shortly before the beginning of the attack my division received,
through channels from the OKW, a written order of the Führer.
This order directed that Russian commissars be shot upon capture
without judicial process immediately and ruthlessly. This order
extended to all units of the Eastern Army. Although the order
was supposed to be relayed to companies, the commanding general
of the 37th Panzer Corps—General of Panzer Troops
Lemelsen—forbade its being passed on to the troops because it
appeared unacceptable to him from military and moral points of
view.”
That brings us to the final affidavit, Number 20, Exhibit USA-564,
Document Number 3717-PS, which is by Adolf Heusinger, Generalleutnant in
the German Army, and from 1940 to 1944 Chief of the Operations Section
at OKH. I read:
“1. From the beginning of the war in 1939 until autumn 1940, I
was I-a of the Operations Section of the OKH, and from autumn
1940 until 20 July 1944 I was chief of that section.
“When Hitler took over supreme command of the Army, he gave to
the Chief of the General Staff of the Army the function of
advising him on all operational matters in the Russian theater.
“This made the Chief of the General Staff of the Army
responsible for all matters in the operational areas in the
East, while the OKW was responsible for all matters outside the
operational areas, for instance all troops—security units, SS
units, Police—stationed in the Reich commissariats.
“All Police and SS units in the Reich commissariats were also
subordinate to the Reichsführer SS. When it was necessary to
transfer such units into operational areas this had to be done
by order of the Chief of the OKW. On the other hand,
corresponding transfers from the front to the rear were ordered
by the OKW with the concurrence of the Chief of the General
Staff of the Army.
“The Higher SS and Police Leaders normally had command of
operations against partisans. If stronger army units were
committed together with the SS and Police units within
operational areas, a higher commander of the Army could be
designated commander of the operation.
“During anti-partisan operations within operational areas all
forces committed for these operations were under the command of
the commander of the respective army group.
“2. Directives as to the manner and methods of carrying on
counter-partisan operations were issued by the OKW—Keitel—to
the OKH upon orders from Hitler and after consultation with
Himmler. The OKH was responsible merely for the transmission of
these orders to army groups, for instance, such orders as those
concerning the treatment to be accorded to commissars and
Communists, those concerning the manner of prosecuting by
courts-martial army personnel who had committed offenses against
the population, as well as those establishing the basic
principles governing reprisals against the inhabitants.
“3. The detailed working out of all matters involving the
treatment of the local populace, as well as anti-partisan
warfare in operational areas in pursuance of orders from the
OKW, was the responsibility of the Quartermaster General of the
OKH.
“4. It had always been my personal opinion that the treatment of
the civilian population and the methods of anti-partisan warfare
in operational areas presented the highest political and
military leaders with a welcomed opportunity of carrying out
their plans, namely, the systematic extermination of Slavism and
Jewry. Entirely independent of this, I always regarded these
cruel methods as military insanity, because they only helped to
make combat against the enemy unnecessarily more difficult.”
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn until a quarter past 2.
[_A recess was taken until 1415 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
COL. TAYLOR: Will Your Lordship swear the witness?
THE PRESIDENT: What is his name?
COL. TAYLOR: Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski.
[_The witness, Von dem Bach-Zelewski, took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?
ERICH VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI (Witness): Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you take this oath: “I swear by God—the Almighty
and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and
add nothing.”
[_The witness repeated the oath._]
COL. TAYLOR: May I remind the witness to speak very slowly, and to keep
his answers as short as possible? Can you hear me?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes.
COL. TAYLOR: Were you a member of the SS?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes.
COL. TAYLOR: What was the last rank you held in the SS?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: SS Obergruppenführer and General of the
Waffen-SS.
COL. TAYLOR: Did you serve in the 1914-18 war?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes. I was at the front from 1914 to 1918, was
wounded twice, and received the Iron Cross, First and Second Class.
COL. TAYLOR: Did you remain in the army after the end of the last war?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes, I stayed in the 100,000-man army.
COL. TAYLOR: How long did you remain in the army?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Till 1924, when I took my discharge.
COL. TAYLOR: Did your military activities then stop?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: No, I was battalion leader in the Border Defense,
and subsequently I took part in maneuvers with the Wehrmacht until the
campaign against Poland.
COL. TAYLOR: Did you join the Nazi Party?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes.
COL. TAYLOR: In what year?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: In the year 1930.
COL. TAYLOR: What branch of the party did you join?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: The Allgemeine-SS.
COL. TAYLOR: What were your activities in the SS prior to the outbreak
of the war?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I established the Allgemeine-SS Border Defense in
the districts of Schneidemühl and Frankfurt-an-der-Oder, and from 1934 I
was Oberabschnittsführer in East Prussia and afterwards in Silesia.
COL. TAYLOR: Were you a member of the Reichstag during this period?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes, I was a member of the Reichstag from 1932
right up to the end.
COL. TAYLOR: Did you take any active part during this war, before the
campaign against the Soviet Union?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: No, not before the campaign against Russia.
COL. TAYLOR: What was your rank at the beginning of the war?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: At the beginning of the war I was SS
Gruppenführer and lieutenant general.
COL. TAYLOR: And when were you promoted?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I was promoted on 9 November 1941 to SS
Obergruppenführer and general of the Waffen-SS.
COL. TAYLOR: What was your position after the beginning of the campaign
against the Soviet Union?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Would you please repeat the question; it was not
quite clear.
COL. TAYLOR: What was your position, your function, at the beginning of
the war against the Soviet Union?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: At the beginning of the campaign against Russia I
served as Higher SS and Police Leader in the central sector of the
Russian Front, in the rear zone of Army Group Center.
COL. TAYLOR: Was there a similar SS official in the rear zone of each
army group?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI; Yes, in each army group, North, Center, and
South, there was a Higher SS and Police Leader.
COL. TAYLOR: Who was the commander of Army Group Center?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: The commander of Army Group Center was, in the
beginning, General Field Marshal Von Bock, and later General Field
Marshal Kluge.
COL. TAYLOR: Who was the Armed Forces commander in the rear zone of Army
Group Center?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: General of the Infantry Von Schenkendorff.
COL. TAYLOR: Was he directly subordinate to the commander of the army
group?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes.
COL. TAYLOR: Who was your immediate superior in the SS?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Heinrich Himmler.
COL. TAYLOR: And who was your immediate superior in the rear zone of the
army?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: General Von Schenkendorff.
COL. TAYLOR: What was your principal task as Higher SS and Police Leader
in central Russia?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: My principal task was fighting partisans.
COL. TAYLOR: Are you generally familiar with the operations of the
so-called Einsatzgruppen of the SD?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes.
COL. TAYLOR: Did these units play any important part in large-scale
anti-Russian operations?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: No.
COL. TAYLOR: What was the principal task of the Einsatzgruppen?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: The principal task of the Einsatzgruppen of the
Sicherheitspolizei was the annihilation of the Jews, gypsies, and
political commissars.
COL. TAYLOR: Then what forces were used for large-scale anti-partisan
operations?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: For anti-partisan activities formations of the
Waffen-SS, of the Ordnungspolizei, and above all, of the Wehrmacht were
used.
COL. TAYLOR: Please describe the nature of these regular army units that
were used for anti-partisan operations.
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: These units of the Wehrmacht were composed, in
the first place, of the security divisions in the rear zone, just behind
the battle front; then there were the so-called Landesschützen
battalions which were independent units under the orders of the
Wehrmacht commanders; and there were also Wehrmacht formations used for
the defense of certain installations such as railways and landing
grounds and other military objectives. Moreover, as from 1943 or 1942,
there were the so-called “alarm units” composed of formations in the
rear zone.
COL. TAYLOR: Until what date did you remain Higher SS and Police Leader
for central Russia?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I was Higher SS and Police Leader for central
Russia until the end of 1942, with occasional interruptions when I was
at the front and with one interval of about 6 months when I had an
illness. At the end of 1942 I was appointed Chief of Anti-Partisan
Combat Units.
COL. TAYLOR: Was this position of Chief of Anti-Partisan Combat Units
created specially for you?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes.
COL. TAYLOR: To whom were you directly subordinate in this new capacity?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Heinrich Himmler.
COL. TAYLOR: Were your functions in this new capacity restricted to any
particular part of the Eastern Front?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: No. My sphere of activity comprised the entire
Eastern zone.
COL. TAYLOR: What was the general nature of your duties as Chief of
Anti-Partisan Combat Units?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: First of all, I had to establish an intelligence
center at Himmler’s headquarters to which all reports in connection with
partisan activities were dispatched, where they were evaluated, and then
forwarded to the competent authorities.
COL. TAYLOR: In the course of your duties did you confer with the
commanders of army groups and armies on the Eastern Front?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: With the commanders of the army groups, not of
the armies, and with the district commanders of the Wehrmacht.
COL. TAYLOR: Did you advise these commanders with respect to the methods
which should be employed to combat partisans?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes.
COL. TAYLOR: Will you name some of the commanders with whom you
personally conferred?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I am quoting from memory, without giving a
complete list: General of Cavalry Bremer, Wehrmacht commander in the
East; General Field Marshal Küchler, commanding general of Army Group
North; the commanding generals of Army Group Center, Kluge and Busch;
the Wehrmacht commander in the Ukraine, General of the Luftwaffe
Kitzinger; General Field Marshal Freiherr von Weichs, commanding general
in Serbia, at Belgrade; and General Kügler, Wehrmacht commander in the
Trieste area.
COL. TAYLOR: What proportion of Wehrmacht troops was used in
anti-partisan operations as compared to Police and SS troops?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Since the number of Police and SS troops was very
small, anti-partisan operations were undertaken mainly by Wehrmacht
formations.
COL. TAYLOR: Were the anti-partisan troops usually commanded by
Wehrmacht officers or by SS officers?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: It varied, depending mostly on the individual
area; in the operational areas Wehrmacht officers nearly always
commanded, but an order existed to the effect that the formation, be it
Wehrmacht, Waffen-SS or Police, which supplied the most troops for a
particular operation, had command of it.
COL. TAYLOR: Did the highest military leaders issue instructions that
anti-partisan operations were to be conducted with severity?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes.
COL. TAYLOR: Did the highest military authorities issue any detailed
instructions as to the methods to be used in anti-partisan operations?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: No.
COL. TAYLOR: What was the result, in the occupied territories, of this
lack of detailed directives from above?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: This lack of detailed directives resulted in a
wild state of anarchy in all anti-partisan operations.
COL. TAYLOR: In your opinion, were the measures taken in anti-partisan
operations far more severe than the circumstances warranted, or were
they not?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Since there were no definite orders and the lower
commanders were forced to act independently, the operations varied
according to the character of the officer in command and the quality of
the troops. I am of the opinion that the operations often not only
failed in their purpose but even overshot their mark.
COL. TAYLOR: Did these measures result in the unnecessary killing of
large numbers of the civilian population?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes.
COL. TAYLOR: Did you report these excessive measures to the commanders
of the army groups and other Wehrmacht officers with whom you worked?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: This state of affairs was generally known. There
was no necessity to make a special report about it, since every
operation had immediately to be reported in all detail, and was known to
every responsible leader.
COL. TAYLOR: Were any effective steps taken by the higher military
authorities or by the commanders of army groups to stop these excesses?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I remember that General Von Schenkendorff in
particular made innumerable reports in this connection and discussed
them with me; both of us forwarded them through our service channels.
COL. TAYLOR: Did these reports by General Von Schenkendorff have any
effect?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: No.
COL. TAYLOR: Why not?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Quartermaster General Wagner certainly attempted
to effect a change by suggesting that more rigid supervision be imposed
on the troops, but he did not succeed in his purpose.
COL. TAYLOR: Was an order ever issued by the highest authorities, that
German soldiers who committed offenses against the civilian population
were not to be punished in the military courts?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes, this order was issued.
COL. TAYLOR: Was this order an obstacle to correcting the excesses of
the troops?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes, in my opinion this order prevented the
orderly conduct of operations, since one can train troops only if one
has adequate disciplinary powers and jurisdiction over them and is able
to check excesses.
COL. TAYLOR: What decorations did you win during the war?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: In this war I received the clusters to the Iron
Cross I and II, the German Cross in gold, and the Knight’s Cross to the
Iron Cross.
COL. TAYLOR: Your Lordship, the witness is available for examination by
others.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Soviet Prosecutor wish to ask any questions?
COL. POKROVSKY: With your permission, I wish to ask a series of
questions.
[_Turning to the witness._] What forces of the Police and SS were at
your disposal in 1941 and 1942, when you were Chief of the Police and SS
in the rear zone of Army Group Center?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Directly under my command in 1941 were one police
regiment of the Regular Police, and occasionally, for about 2 or 3
months at a time, one SS cavalry brigade.
COL. POKROVSKY: Was the Einsatzgruppe B, headed by Nebe, under your
command?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: No.
COL. POKROVSKY: Did you or did you not receive Nebe’s reports?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Not directly, but I managed to see them.
COL. POKROVSKY: What do you know of the activities of Einsatzgruppe B?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Einsatzgruppe B was located in Smolensk, and
operated in precisely the same way as all the other Einsatzgruppen. One
heard everywhere in conversation that the Jews were being rounded up and
sent to ghettos.
COL. POKROVSKY: Did you report to the commands of the operational groups
on the activities of Einsatzgruppe B?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I asked for information on the activities of
Einsatzgruppe B directly through Schenkendorff, from the I. C. of Army
Group Center.
COL. POKROVSKY: Did you know of the order issued by the commander of the
6th Army, General Reichenau, regarding the partisan movement?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Would you be good enough to repeat the name; was
it General Von Reichenau?
COL. POKROVSKY: Yes.
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes, I know of that. I think it was in 1941, but
I am not certain—it might have been in 1942—when General Von Reichenau
sent to all the Wehrmacht commanders an order approving the actions
taken against the Jews and partisans.
COL. POKROVSKY: In 1943 or later were there, under your command, units
or companies specially selected to combat the partisan movement?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: In 1943, as Chief of Anti-Partisan Combat Units,
I had no direct authority to issue orders, since I was head of the
central office, but I did lead some operations wherever the authority of
two commanders overlapped.
COL. POKROVSKY: Do you know anything about the existence of a special
brigade consisting of smugglers, poachers, and persons released from
prison?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: When all the troops really suitable for
anti-partisan warfare had been withdrawn, an anti-partisan battalion
under the command of Dirlewanger was formed and attached to Army Group
Center at the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942. This battalion was
gradually strengthened by the addition of reserve units until it reached
the proportions, first, of a regiment and, later, of a brigade. This
“Dirlewanger Brigade” consisted for the most part of previously
convicted criminals; officially it consisted of so-called poachers, but
it did include real criminals convicted of burglary, murder, _et
cetera_.
COL. POKROVSKY: How do you explain the fact that the German Army Command
so willingly strengthened and increased its forces by adding criminals
to them and then using these criminals against the partisans?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I am of the opinion that this step was closely
connected with a speech made by Heinrich Himmler at Wezelsburg at the
beginning of 1941, prior to the campaign against Russia, when he spoke
of the purpose of the Russian campaign, which was, he said, to decimate
the Slav population by 30 million, and that it was in order to achieve
this purpose that troops of such inferior caliber were introduced.
COL. POKROVSKY: Is it correct then to say that the character of the
troops used by the commanders to fight the partisans had been given
careful consideration? Did they receive precise instructions how to
treat the population and how to fight against the partisans? I am now
referring to the proposed and officially sanctioned extermination of the
population.
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes, I think this purpose was a decisive factor
in the selection of certain commanders and formations.
COL. POKROVSKY: By what means and by what measures were Wehrmacht units
brought in to fight the partisans? Were they specially recruited or were
they used from time to time according to some set plan?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I think that on the whole there was no definite
set plan. So-called large-scale operations were initiated, planned, and
executed by headquarters. Anti-partisan fighting, however, was mostly of
a spontaneous nature, since every lower commander was obliged to keep
his own area free of partisans and thus had to act on his own
initiative.
COL. POKROVSKY: You said that in very many cases generals and officers
of the Wehrmacht personally headed the operations against the partisans.
Can you give us some concrete facts and the names of some of the
generals and officers?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I didn’t fully understand the meaning of the
question. The names of commanders?
COL. POKROVSKY: You have told us that certain operations during the
struggle against the partisans were conducted by officers and generals
of the Wehrmacht, and I now ask you if you can name some of the officers
and generals?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes, some of the generals I have already
mentioned. In addition I remember Major General Hartmann, in central
Russia. One large-scale anti-partisan operation was either led by him or
at least directed by him from his headquarters. I also remember Colonel
General Reinhardt in whose rear zone there were important partisan
groups. I might even say that there was not a single general in the rear
zone who did not participate in the struggle against the partisans. I
cannot, of course, remember all the names; but if I hear them mentioned,
I can tell you whether or not they participated.
COL. POKROVSKY: Could you tell us what undertaking was commanded by
General Ackmann?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: No, I cannot remember that.
COL. POKROVSKY: Were there any general orders relating to prisoners of
war, the civilian population, or the partisans?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Unfortunately there were no general instructions
which clearly stated how the partisans or the population were to be
treated. That was the complaint I made: That no instruction was issued
on the treatment of the partisans and that we were not even told who was
to be considered a partisan. When anything happened and the German
Wehrmacht was attacked, there were never clear orders on what was to be
done by way of reprisals.
COL. POKROVSKY: Am I to understand that in the absence of direct orders
commanders were given a clear field and had the right to declare any
person they wished a partisan and treat him accordingly?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: The commanders certainly had to and could act and
decide independently. No precise control was possible in individual
cases, but the activities of all the troops used were always clearly
known to the High Command, because the individual reports of the troops
contained all details of the counter measures taken against the
partisans—that is, they had to contain the number of partisans killed
in combat, the number of partisans shot, of partisan suspects shot, and
the number of our own losses. At the same time captured weapons had to
be listed in detail, so that each leader could therefore see clearly how
an operation worked out in practice.
COL. POKROVSKY: That means that each commander decided for himself
whether there was any reason to suspect a man and to execute him?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: Do you know of any order prescribing the seizure of
hostages and the burning of villages as a reprisal for abetting the
partisans?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: No. I do not think that written orders to that
effect were ever issued, and it is precisely this lack of any orders
which I considered a mistake. It should, for instance, have been
definitely stated how many people could be executed as a reprisal for
the killing of one, or of 10 German soldiers.
COL. POKROVSKY: Am I to understand that if certain commanders burned
villages as a punitive measure against the local population, they, the
commanders, would be acting on their own initiative?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes. These steps would be taken by a commander on
his own initiative. Nor could his superior officers do anything against
it, since orders emanating from the highest authorities definitely
stated that if excesses were committed against the civilian population
in the partisan areas, no disciplinary or juridical measures could be
taken.
COL. POKROVSKY: And can we assume that the same applied to the seizure
of hostages?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Well, I think that the question of hostages did
not arise at all in the anti-partisan struggle. The hostage system was
more common in the West. At any rate the term “hostage” was not used in
anti-partisan warfare.
COL. POKROVSKY: Do you know anything about the forcible abduction and
deportation to Germany of minors between 14 and 18 years of age?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Naturally, I do not remember details such as the
age groups, but when I was appointed Chief of Anti-Partisan Combat
Units, I welcomed an order, issued at my suggestion, forbidding
indiscriminate reprisals of the troops and decreeing that in future
captured partisans and partisan suspects would no longer be shot but
would be brought to the Reich by the Sauckel organization.
COL. POKROVSKY: If I understood you correctly, you replied to a question
of my colleague, the American Prosecutor, by saying that the struggle
against the partisan movement was a pretext for destroying the Slav and
Jewish population?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: Was the Wehrmacht Command aware of the methods adopted
for fighting the partisan movement and for destroying the Jewish
population?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: The methods were known generally, and hence to
the military leaders as well. I do not, of course, know whether they
were aware of the plan mentioned by Himmler.
COL. POKROVSKY: Did you personally take part in any conferences with
generals of the Wehrmacht during which the methods of anti-partisan
warfare were clearly and plainly discussed?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: The methods as such were discussed in detail and
knowledge of them was taken for granted, but it was not mentioned at
these discussions that such and such a number of persons were to be
shot. That would be a wrong conclusion.
COL. POKROVSKY: You have told us that the Germans intended to destroy
the Slav population in order to reduce the number of Slavs to 30
million. Where did you get this figure and this order?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I must correct that: Not to reduce to 30 million,
but by 30 million. Himmler mentioned this figure in his speech at the
Wezelsburg.
COL. POKROVSKY: Do you confirm the fact that actually all the measures
carried out by the German commanders and by the Wehrmacht in the
occupied Russian territories were directed to the sole purpose of
reducing the number of Slavs and Jews by 30 million?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: The meaning of that is not quite clear to me. Did
the Wehrmacht know that the Slav population was to be diminished by 30
million? Would you please repeat the question, it wasn’t quite clear?
COL. POKROVSKY: I asked: Can you actually and truthfully confirm that
the measures taken by the Wehrmacht Command in the district
administrative areas then occupied by the Germans were directed to the
purpose of diminishing the Slavs and Jews by 30 million? Do you now
understand the question?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I believe that these methods would definitely
have resulted in the extermination of 30 million if they had been
continued, and if developments of that time had not completely changed
the situation.
COL. POKROVSKY: I have no further questions to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Defense have any questions?
DR. EXNER: Witness, you said you were chief of anti-partisan operations,
didn’t you?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Chief of Anti-Partisan Combat Units.
DR. EXNER: Well, if such chaotic conditions really existed, why didn’t
you alter the system?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Because I was never given the requisite
authority.
DR. EXNER: I beg your pardon?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Because I was never given authority. I could not
issue orders, I had no disciplinary powers, and I was not an appointing
authority for military courts.
DR. EXNER: Then did you make a report on the existing conditions to your
superior officers?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Every day. I had a permanent staff at Himmler’s
headquarters.
DR. EXNER: Did you suggest any changes?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Persistently.
DR. EXNER: And why were these changes never realized?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I think I have already expressed myself quite
clearly on this point: because I think that these changes were not
desired.
DR. EXNER: You also, as you have informed us, reported to your superior
authorities on the number of enemy dead, wounded, and prisoners after
each operation. Tell me what, approximately, was the proportion of enemy
prisoners to the enemy dead?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: The figures varied in each case. I cannot
generalize, but it was a fact that prisoners usually far outnumbered the
enemy dead.
DR. EXNER: The prisoners outnumbered the dead?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes, but only in the years after the order
allowing prisoners to be taken.
DR. EXNER: The system was harsher at first, you say, and milder later
on?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes, it was milder insofar as we now had definite
orders stating where the prisoners were to be brought and to whom they
were to be turned over. There were no such orders in the beginning.
DR. EXNER: Can you name any orders which you received from military
authorities, dealing in any way with the annihilation of millions of
Slavs?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I already gave my answer to that question to the
prosecutor when I said that a written order to that effect did not
exist.
DR. EXNER: Do you know that the reports which you sent to Himmler on the
actions which you had carried out were submitted by Himmler directly to
the Führer?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: May I reply to that in some detail? At first I
had a permanent staff at Himmler’s headquarters. My chief of staff was
there permanently while I was at the front. Between the Wehrmacht
offices—that is, OKW and OKH—and my own staff there was constant and
organized interchange of reports, for reports on partisan activities did
not always reach me first, since from some operational areas the channel
for reports was through the OKH. Therefore the Wehrmacht sent me as many
reports as I sent to the Wehrmacht. These reports were collected in my
staff, and were daily sent to Himmler who forwarded them again.
DR. EXNER: To whom?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: The gentlemen of the Wehrmacht have confirmed to
me, here in prison, that these reports were submitted during strategic
conferences.
DR. EXNER: Can you tell me whether Jews participated in the partisan
groups?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: There is no question but that in individual
partisan groups Jews did participate, in numbers corresponding to the
size of the Jewish population.
DR. EXNER: In individual groups? Was it not more in the nature of an
exception?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes, it was definitely an exception.
DR. EXNER: That is why I do not quite understand how actions taken
against the partisans were to lead to the extermination of the Jews.
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I did not say that; I was speaking earlier of the
Einsatzgruppen of the Sicherheitspolizei.
DR. EXNER: Oh, I see, that is different. Do you know anything about the
Dirlewanger regiment?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: That was the Dirlewanger Brigade, which I
described in detail to the prosecutor a short time ago.
DR. EXNER: Yes. Was that brigade at any time under your command?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes, in 1941.
DR. EXNER: Was it a formation of the Army or the SS?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: No, it was not a formation of the Waffen-SS; it
was supplied by the Allgemeine SS, that is, by the Berger office.
DR. EXNER: Can you tell me who was present at Himmler’s speech at the
Wezelsburg?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: About 12 Gruppenführer were present, I can name
them if you like.
DR, EXNER: You mean Gruppenführer . . .
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Gruppenführer of the SS.
DR. EXNER: Were any officers of the Wehrmacht present?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: No.
DR. EXNER: Thank you very much.
DR. KRAUS: You were present in Königsberg on the 18th of August 1935
when the former President of the Reichsbank, Schacht, made a speech at
the Eastern Fair (Ostmesse)?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes.
DR. KRAUS: What was your position at that time?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I was Oberabschnittsführer.
DR. KRAUS: Were you present at the speech in your official capacity?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes, as Oberabschnittsführer of the SS.
DR. KRAUS: And you suddenly left the room in the middle of the speech,
as a protest?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes, in the middle of the speech I left the room.
DR. KRAUS: In protest?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes.
DR. KRAUS: Then you did not agree with the speech?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I did not leave on account of the speech but as a
protest.
DR. KRAUS: As a protest against the contents of the speech?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: No.
DR. KRAUS: May I ask, then, why you protested?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: It is well known that in East Prussia I conducted
a violent campaign against the then Gauleiter Koch, which, led to his
suspension. Koch and I were bitterly opposed and I could not therefore
understand why Reich Minister Schacht, who God knows did not belong to
Koch’s school of thought, should take pains to pay compliments to this
man, whom I knew to be corrupt.
DR. KRAUS: Were you protesting, then, against the attitude of Herr
Schacht or that of Herr Koch?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I think Herr Schacht must have known that it was
a protest against Koch. In any case I had it explained to him later, and
we finally settled the matter amicably through mediators.
DR. KRAUS: I see. Thank you.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you said that a change was made regarding the
treatment of partisans, and that it was ordered that the partisans were
to be placed into the labor service. Where did this order originate?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I cannot give you detailed information about
this, I only know that Herr Sauckel himself went around in the East and
made long speeches to the effect that it would be best if these men who
were captured in partisan warfare were placed in the labor service
through his organization.
DR. SERVATIUS: I asked where this order originated. Did it originate
with Himmler or, as you described it, with the Sauckel organization?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: No. The Sauckel organization could, of course,
never issue orders relating to partisan warfare. I presume that the
Sauckel organization suggested the order, but of course it had to
originate with Himmler or the OKW.
DR. SERVATIUS: What do you know of the Sauckel organization? Where did
it exist?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I know only what was generally known: namely,
that this organization existed for the purpose of bringing manpower into
the Reich for work in the armament industry.
DR. SERVATIUS: You spoke of an organization; but you don’t know anything
about this organization, do you?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: No, I don’t mean it in your sense, a large
independent organization; that is not what I mean. But it was obvious
that a man who was responsible for the whole of manpower must have an
organization at his disposal. I beg your pardon, it was a mistake on my
part.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then you do not know that Sauckel had no executive power
at all and that he was not provided with an administrative machine of
his own.
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: No, I don’t know that.
THE PRESIDENT: I want the attention of the defendants’ counsel. What I
want to say is this, that unless counsel and the witnesses speak slowly
and make adequate pauses between the questions and the answers, it is
impossible for the interpreters to interpret properly, and the only
result is that the questions and answers do not come through to the
Tribunal, nor do the defendants’ counsel get the benefit of the true
meaning of the answers which have been given in the
examination-in-chief, and everything that you may think you gain by
rapidity of cross-examination, you lose by the inadequacy of the
translation. I will repeat, that you should pause at the end of your
sentences and at the end of your questions, so as to give the
interpreter’s voice time to come through.
DR. STAHMER: Witness, you said that from 1942 onwards you were Chief of
Anti-Partisan Combat Units. As such, it was your duty to fight the
partisans in the East?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes, that is correct, in the East.
DR. STAHMER: Now, you said that it was not quite clear what was to be
understood by the term “partisan”; the concept of “partisan” was never
during the entire period clearly defined. Is that correct?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes, the sense of that is correct. In my opinion
a distinction should be drawn between partisans and partisan suspects.
The troops did not always make this distinction. A partisan was a man
carefully selected and trained by the enemy. He was also very well
armed. I always insisted that this concept was not vague, but concrete.
If fire is opened from a wood, a house, or a village, it is not correct
to say that everyone in the wood, house, or village is a partisan; for
this reason: The tactics of the partisans were to disappear rapidly
after a successful action; they relied on the element of surprise
inherent in this method of warfare. If the troops took their counter
measures without being specially trained and without exact knowledge of
this concept of “partisan,” then they would conclude from the fact that
they had been fired on from a village, that all the inhabitants were
partisans. In my view, a partisan can be considered as such only if he
is encountered or captured with a weapon in his hand. If he has no
weapon, he cannot be considered a partisan.
DR. STAHMER: Now, what did you do in a positive way to clarify this
concept of “partisan”?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: As I have already said, ever since 1941, even
before I was Chief of Anti-Partisan Combat Units, not only I but also
General Von Schenkendorff, continually sent numbers of memoranda
containing suggestions. Moreover, in the Russian Army Group Center, for
instance, we organized schools for fighting partisans, where the troops
were to be trained along these lines. Schenkendorff and I, together,
worked out a series of regulations for fighting partisans, but they were
never published. Immediately after I was appointed Chief of
Anti-Partisan Combat Units, that is, in the beginning of 1943, my staff
began to prepare a new series of regulations for fighting partisans.
Many months passed, however, before these regulations were finally
published, in 1944, when they were already practically useless.
DR. STAHMER: Who issued these regulations?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: These regulations were published by the
Wehrmacht, in the form of an ordinary Wehrmacht directive.
DR. STAHMER: They were issued by the Wehrmacht?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: They came out in 1944.
DR. STAHMER: What were their contents?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: They were entitled, _Regulations for the Fighting
of Partisans (Bandenkampfvorschrift)_.
DR. STAHMER: What were their contents?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: They comprised the whole of partisan warfare;
thus they contained reconnaissance, operational details, differences
between small-scale, medium-scale, and large-scale operations.
DR. STAHMER: Since these partisan combat regulations did not appear
before 1944, was it not your task, as you had all anti-partisan forces
in the whole East, to instruct your forces directly on their conduct?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: In the first place, as I have said, I had no
authority to issue orders. Consequently, I could only make suggestions.
Secondly, closely organized anti-partisan forces never existed; it was
an empty name which they were given. Any kind and number of formations
would be assigned for anti-partisan warfare whenever necessary. It is
wrong to say that I had troops at my disposal for the sole purpose of
fighting the partisans. Moreover—and I should like to emphasize
that—the document appointing me Chief of Anti-Partisan Combat Units
stated as follows: Anti-partisan operations will be commanded either by
the Higher SS and Police Officer, or the competent Wehrmacht commander
in their respective areas. According to that directive, my own task was
only that of an inspector, in spite of my continuous request for
authority to issue orders.
DR. STAHMER: I don’t quite understand . . .
THE PRESIDENT: You must go slowly and you must pause between your
sentences.
DR. STAHMER: As general of the Waffen-SS you must have had power to
issue orders?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I had authority only to issue orders when I
personally conducted an operation.
DR. STAHMER: But you were appointed, as you said, to fight the partisans
and you must have had combat units for the purpose?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: No, I had no such units.
DR. STAHMER: Then how did you conduct your fight against the partisans?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: In each case, I went to the respective commander,
discussed the operation with him and asked for the necessary troops,
unless they were put at my disposal, as it often happened, by the OKW or
the OKH directly.
DR. STAHMER: You asked for troops, unless they were put at your
disposal. But then these troops assigned to you were under your command,
were they not?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: No, only if I personally commanded the operation.
Otherwise, as I said, either the competent general of the Wehrmacht or,
in the area of the civil government, the higher SS and police Leader
commanded the operation. It was expressly noted in the directive
containing my appointment as Chief of the Anti-Partisan Combat Units,
that I could request authority to command an operation only if the
authority of two higher SS and police leaders or of two Wehrmacht
commanders overlapped, thus calling for a higher authority to handle the
conflicting responsibilities.
DR. STAHMER: Did you never personally command an operation?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes, I conducted one operation in 1943.
DR. STAHMER: In what way?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: This undertaking took place in the fall of 1943,
in the region of Idrizza Polotsk. I first flew to the Army Group Center
and talked the matter over with the then chief, General Krebs. Then I
went on to Army Group North and discussed the same matter with Field
Marshal Küchler. Küchler organized all the troops of the SS and Police
and also the Wehrmacht formations in the rear areas into a so-called
corps under the command of Jaeckel. The Army Group Center did the same
with its own forces, and also formed a corps under the command of the
Higher SS and Police Leader in the area. I myself, with my staff, was in
command of both, and Colonel Von Mellenthin of the OKH was assigned to
me as liaison officer. Then I conducted the enterprise personally. In
the meantime the front had been broken through in foggy weather, and I
made the independent decision of turning against the Red Army forces
which had broken through; thus my units became the front line.
DR. STAHMER: You said a little while ago that you had been decorated
with the Knight’s Cross. Did you receive this decoration for this
undertaking alone?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: No, as I said before, I was already at the front
in the year 1941. Again and again I was with the fighting units: In 1941
at Moscow, in 1942 at Velikie-Luki, and later at Koebel, at Warsaw
during the uprising in Warsaw; and from 1944 onwards I commanded an SS
corps.
DR. STAHMER: Did you not know that you were particularly commended by
Hitler and Himmler and decorated mainly for your ruthless and efficient
actions in the war against the partisans?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: No. I received no decoration for the war against
the partisans. I received all my decorations, beginning with the
clusters to the Iron Cross II, at the front and from the Wehrmacht. I
will gladly give you names.
DR. STAHMER: The Brigade Dirlewanger was an SS brigade, wasn’t it?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: The Brigade Dirlewanger did not belong to the
Waffen-SS. It was an organization which could possibly be classified as
part of the Allgemeine-SS. It was not supplied and kept up by the
Waffen-SS, but by the Berger office.
DR. STAHMER: Was the commander of the Brigade Dirlewanger a member of
the SS?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes.
DR. STAHMER: Didn’t you yourself suggest that criminals should be
organized and used for fighting the partisans?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: No.
DR. THOMA: Witness, do you know that the civil government in White
Ruthenia often protested against the manner in which the anti-partisan
activities were carried on?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes.
DR. THOMA: The civil authority was subordinate to the Reich
Commissioner, and he in turn was subordinate to Rosenberg as Minister
for the Occupied Eastern Territories, is that correct?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes.
DR. THOMA: If I understood you correctly, you disapproved of the manner
in which the fighting against partisans was carried on, involving many
innocent people; and you disapproved also of the existence of the
Dirlewanger Regiment and of the speech of Reichsführer SS Himmler?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes.
DR. THOMA: How could you then reconcile it with your conscience to
remain chief or inspector of anti-partisan units and also head of such
Einsatzgruppen?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I was never chief of Einsatzgruppen.
THE PRESIDENT: The question had not come through then on the
interpreter’s voice before you began to answer. You must give greater
pauses between the question and answer.
DR. THOMA: How did you reconcile it with your conscience to remain
inspector of the anti-partisan forces in the East?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Not only could I reconcile that with my
conscience, but I actually strove to obtain this position because in the
years 1941 and 1942 I saw, together with Schenkendorff, that things
could not continue as they were. General Schenkendorff, my immediate
superior, recommended me for the position.
DR. THOMA: But you knew that you could not achieve anything with these
suggestions?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: No, I couldn’t know that. What I realize and
acknowledge today, I could not possibly have known then.
DR. THOMA: At any rate, you achieved nothing?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I don’t think that; my opinion is rather that if
someone else had been in my position, the disaster would have been
greater.
DR. THOMA: Do you believe that Himmler’s speech, in which he demanded
the extermination of 30 million Slavs, expressed only his personal
opinion; or do you consider that it corresponded to the National
Socialist ideology?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Today I believe that it was the logical
consequence of our ideology.
DR. THOMA: Today?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Today.
DR. THOMA: What was your own opinion at that time?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: It is difficult for a German to fight through to
this conviction. It took me a long time.
DR. THOMA: Then how is it that a few days ago a witness, namely, the
Witness Ohlendorf, appeared here and admitted that through the
Einsatzgruppen he had killed 90,000 people, but told the Tribunal that
this did not harmonize with the National Socialist ideology?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I am of a different opinion. If for years, for
decades, a doctrine is preached to the effect that the Slav race is an
inferior race, that the Jews are not even human beings, then an
explosion of this sort is inevitable.
DR. THOMA: Nevertheless the fact remains that, together with whatever
attitude towards life you had at that time, you also had a conscience?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: And today, too—for that reason I am here.
[_Dr. Exner approached the lectern._]
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, are you cross-examining on behalf of some
other defendant, or what?
DR. EXNER: I should like to ask two or three questions which my client
put to me as important during the recess.
THE PRESIDENT: You have already cross-examined, have you not?
DR. EXNER: Yes, but I now have three new questions. We were not able to
prepare ourselves for this cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Go on.
DR. EXNER: Witness, you said an order was issued in the year 1944
regarding anti-partisan warfare. During the recess, I found in the
document book of the Prosecution, under 1786-PS, mention of a combat
directive on partisan warfare, dated 27 November 1942. Do you know of
this?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: No.
DR. EXNER: But it must exist, since it is mentioned here.
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I don’t know it.
DR. EXNER: Do you know of a Russian directive for partisan warfare?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Yes, that existed.
DR. EXNER: Could you give us information on the contents of this
directive? What were the combat methods prescribed?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I no longer remember it.
DR. EXNER: Do you know where this directive is available?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: No.
DR. EXNER: Thank you.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): One moment. Do you know how many members of
the Wehrmacht were used at any one time in this anti-partisan activity?
What was the largest number of the troops?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: Large-scale undertakings were those carried out
with one division or more. I believe the largest number of troops for a
single operation might have been three divisions.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I mean all the troops on the Eastern Front at
any one time used in these anti-partisan activities?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I cannot answer that, because these troops were
never together under my direction. Operations were conducted
simultaneously, large-, small-, and medium-scale operations were being
carried out everywhere at the same time. Reports of such operations came
in every day.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you know how many Einsatzgruppen were
used?
VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I know of three, one for each army group.
THE PRESIDENT: [_To Colonel Taylor._] You don’t want to re-examine?
COL. TAYLOR: No, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness may go.
[_The witness left the stand._]
COL. TAYLOR: Your Lordship, that concludes the evidence under Counts
Three and Four of the Indictment and I have only a few more words by way
of general conclusion.
I ask the Tribunal to bear in mind that the German High Command is not
an evanescent thing, the creature of a decade of unrest, or a school of
thought or tradition which is shattered and utterly discredited. The
German High Command and military tradition have in the past achieved
victory and survived defeat. They have met with triumph and disaster,
and they have survived through a singular durability.
An eminent American statesman and diplomat, Mr. Sumner Welles, has
written, and I quote from his book _The Time for Decision_, Page 261:
“. . . that the authority to which the German people have so
often and so disastrously responded was not in reality the
German Emperor of yesterday, or the Hitler of today, but the
German General Staff. Whether their ostensible ruler is the
Kaiser, or Hindenburg, or Adolf Hitler, the continuing loyalty
of the bulk of the population is given to that military force
controlled and guided by the German General Staff.”
I think that this emphasizes the historical importance of the decision
which this Tribunal is called on to make. But we are not now indicting
the German General Staff at the bar of history, but on specific charges
of crimes against international law and the dictates of the conscience
of mankind, as embodied in the Charter which governs this Court.
The picture we have seen is that of a group of men with great power for
good or evil, who chose the latter, who deliberately set out to arm
Germany to the point where the German will could be imposed on the rest
of the world, and who gladly joined forces with the most evil forces at
work in Germany. “Hitler produced the results which all of us warmly
desired,” we are told by Blomberg and Blaskowitz, and that is obviously
the truth. The converse is no less clear; the military leaders furnished
Hitler with the means and the might which were necessary to his
survival, to say nothing of the accomplishment of those purposes which
seemed to us so ludicrously impossible in 1932 and so fearfully imminent
in 1942.
I have said that the German militarists were inept as well as
persistent. Helpless as Hitler would have been without them, he
succeeded in mastering them. The generals and the Nazis were allies in
1933. But it was not enough that the generals should be his voluntary
allies; Hitler wanted them permanently and completely under his control.
Devoid of political skill and principle, the generals lacked the
mentality or morality to resist. On the day of the death of President
Hindenburg, in August 1934, the German officers swore a new oath. Their
previous oath had been to the Fatherland; now it was to a man—Adolf
Hitler. Later the Nazi emblem became part of their uniform, the Nazi
flag their standard. By a clever process of infiltration into key
positions, Hitler seized control of the entire military machine.
We will no doubt hear the generals ask what they could have done about
it. We will hear that they were helpless, and that to protect their jobs
and families and lives, they had to follow Hitler’s decisions. No doubt
this became true, but the generals were a key factor in Hitler’s rise to
complete power and a partner in his criminal aggressive designs. It is
always difficult and dangerous to withdraw from a criminal conspiracy.
Never has it been suggested that a conspirator may claim mercy on the
ground that his fellow conspirators threatened him with harm, should he
withdraw from the plot.
In many respects the spectacle which the German General Staff and High
Command group presents today is the most degrading of all the groups and
organizations before this Court. They are the bearers of a tradition not
devoid of valor and honor; but they emerge from this war stained both by
criminality and ineptitude. Attracted by the militaristic and aggressive
Nazi policies, the German generals found themselves drawn into
adventures of a scope they had not foreseen. From crimes in which almost
all of them participated willingly and approvingly were born others in
which they participated partly because they were too ineffective to
alter the governing Nazi policies and partly because they had to
continue collaboration to save their own skins.
Having joined the partnership, the General Staff and High Command group
planned and carried through manifold acts of aggression which turned
Europe into a charnel house and caused the Armed Forces to be used for
foul practices, foully executed, of terror, pillage, and wholesale
slaughter. Let no one be heard to say that the military uniform shall be
a cloak, or that they may find sanctuary by pleading membership in the
profession to which their actions were a disgrace.
COL. STOREY: If the Tribunal pleases, the next subject will be the
presentation of supplemental evidence concerning the persecution of the
churches as presented by Colonel Wheeler.
COLONEL LEONARD WHEELER, JR. (Assistant Trial Counsel for the United
States): Your Honors, the material now to be submitted comprises, first,
supplemental proof on the suppression of the churches within Germany:
the Evangelical churches, the Catholic Church, and the Bibelforscher (or
Bible students); and second, acts of suppression in the annexed and
occupied territories, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. A large part
of this proof will be from the official files of the Vatican.
I now submit to the Court United States Trial Brief H (supplemental), on
“Suppression of the Christian Churches in Germany and in the Occupied
Territories,” and Document Book H (supplemental), containing English
translations of all the documents referred to in the supplemental brief,
or to be referred to in my oral presentation. I shall take up first the
supplemental proof on the suppression of the churches in Germany.
Hitler announced in March 1933 a distinction in his policy toward
politics and morals on the one hand and religion on the other. I offer
in evidence Document Number 3387-PS, Exhibit Number USA-566. This is a
speech by Hitler to the Reichstag on March 23, 1933, quoted in the
_Völkischer Beobachter_, for March 24, 1933, Page 1, Column 5 of the
German newspaper. I quote from this speech:
“While the Government is determined to carry through a political
and moral purging of our public life, it is creating and
insuring the requisites of a truly religious life. The
Government sees in both Christian confessions the factors most
important for the maintenance of our Volkstum. It will respect
agreements concluded between them and the Länder. However, it
expects that its work will meet with like appreciation. The
Government will treat all other denominations with objective
justice. However, it can never condone that belonging to a
certain denomination or to a certain race should be regarded as
a license for the commission or toleration of crime. The
Government will devote its care to harmony between Church and
State.”
Toward the Evangelical churches, the Nazi conspirators proceeded at
first with caution, and an appearance of legality. They set up a new
constitution of the German Evangelical Church, which introduced the
innovation of a single Lutheran Reich Bishop, who assumed all the
administrative functions of the old agencies of the churches. I refer to
Document Number 3433-PS, the Decree concerning the Constitution of the
German Evangelical Church, dated July 14, 1933, appearing in the
_Reichsgesetzblatt_, 1933, Part I, Page 471, and request that the Court
take judicial notice of it.
It is too well known to require documentation that the new Reich Bishop,
Bishop Müller, heeded the voice of his Nazi masters. One of his first
steps was to maneuver the Evangelical Youth Association into the Hitler
Jugend under the Defendant Von Schirach in December 1933. In proof of
this I refer to Document Number 1458 (a)-PS, already in evidence as part
of Document Book D. This is an excerpt from Von Schirach’s book, _The
Hitler Youth—Idea and Formation_.
By 1935 it had become evident that more than persuasion by the Reich
Bishop was necessary. Consequently the Nazi conspirators promulgated a
number of public laws which, under innocent sounding titles, gradually
wove a tight net of state control over all the affairs of the
Evangelical churches. We ask that the Court take judicial notice of
these laws published in the _Reichsgesetzblatt_. These may be briefly
summarized as follows:
3434-PS, “Law concerning Procedure for Decisions in Legal Affairs of the
Evangelical Church,” dated 26 June 1935, signed by Hitler and Frick,
appearing in 1935 in _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, Page 774. This gave
the Reich Minister of the Interior, the Defendant Frick, when question
was raised in a civil lawsuit, sole authority to determine the validity
of measures taken in the Evangelical state churches, or in the German
Evangelical Church since May 1, 1933.
3435-PS, “First Ordinance for Execution of the Law concerning Procedure
for Decisions in Legal Affairs of the Evangelical Church,” dated July 3,
1935, appearing in 1935 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, Page 851. This
implemented the earlier law, by setting up an Office for Decisions with
three members appointed by the Reich Minister of the Interior.
3466-PS, “Decree to Unite the Competences of Reich and Prussia in Church
Affairs,” dated July 16, 1935, signed by Hitler, published in 1935
_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, Page 1029. This transferred to Reich
Minister without Portfolio Kerrl the Church Affairs hitherto handled by
the Reich and Prussian Ministries of the Interior and for Science,
Education, and Training of the Population.
3436-PS, “Law for the Safeguarding of the German Evangelical Church,”
dated 24 September 1935, published in the 1935 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part
I, Page 1178, signed by Hitler and the Minister for Church Affairs, Dr.
Kerrl. This empowered the Reich Minister of Church Affairs to issue
ordinances with binding legal force.
3437-PS, “Fifth Decree for Execution of the Law for the Safeguarding of
the German Evangelical Church,” dated 2 December 1935, published in 1935
_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, Page 1370. This prohibited “Organs of
Church Leadership” in the Evangelical churches from filling pastorates,
engaging clerical assistants, examining and ordaining candidates of the
state churches, visitation, publishing of the banns, and collection and
administration of church dues and assessments.
This series of laws culminated on June 26, 1937, in Document Number
3439-PS, the “Fifteenth Decree for the Execution of the Law for Security
of the German Evangelical Church,” dated June 25, 1937, published in
1937 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, Page 697. By this, the Reich Minister
for Church Affairs, Kerrl, established a finance department for the
churches to supervise the administration of all church property, the
budget, and the use of budget funds and to regulate salaries and
allowances of officials, clergy, and employees. Thus, before the
outbreak of the war, the Nazi conspirators had the Evangelical churches
tied hand and foot physically and administratively, if not spiritually.
Against the Catholic Church with its international organization the Nazi
conspirators launched a most vigorous and drastic attack—again at
first, however, cloaked under a mantle of co-operation and legality. A
concordat signed by the Defendant Von Papen, one of the foremost
Catholic laymen in Germany, was concluded between the Reich Government
and the Vatican on July 20, 1933. It is printed in the 1933
_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part II, Page 679 to Page 690, and contained in
Document Number 3280 (a)-PS. I ask the Court to take judicial notice of
it. I quote Article 1:
“The German Reich guarantees freedom of profession and public
practice of the Catholic religion.
“It acknowledges the right of the Catholic Church, within the
limit of those laws which are applicable to all, to manage and
regulate its own affairs independently and, within the framework
of its own competence, to publish laws and ordinances binding on
its members.”
Other articles which, being matters of common knowledge, I assume need
not be read into the record, formulated basic principles such as freedom
of the Catholic press, of Catholic education, and of Catholic
charitable, professional, and other organizations.
The proposal for the concordat came from the Reich, and not from the
Vatican. I refer to Document Number 3268-PS, Exhibit Number USA-356,
excerpts from the Allocution of Pope Pius XII to the Sacred College on
June 2, 1945, already read into evidence. I quote from Page 1 of the
English mimeographed excerpts, Page 1 of the German translation, third
paragraph, which has not previously been read, “In the spring of 1933
the German Government asked the Holy See to conclude a concordat with
the Reich.”
The present Pope, Pope Pius XII, then Cardinal Pacelli, negotiated and
signed the concordat on behalf of the Vatican. As Archbishop Pacelli he
had previously been Papal Nuncio in Germany for 12 years.
Relying upon the Nazis’ assurances, particularly Hitler’s speech of
March 23, 1933 above quoted (3387-PS), the Catholic hierarchy revoked
its previous opposition against Catholics becoming members of the
National Socialist Party. I offer in evidence Document Number 3389-PS,
Exhibit USA-566, a pastoral letter, dated March 23, 1933, from the
Bishop of Cologne, and I quote from the _Völkischer Beobachter_ for
March 29, 1933 Page 2 Columns 2 and 3:
“The Archbishop of Cologne, Cardinal Schulte, announces to the
Archdiocese of Cologne a declaration of the Bishops’ Conference
at Fulda, which states:
“The bishops of the diocese of Germany, in their dutiful
solicitude to keep the Catholic faith pure and to protect the
inviolable aims and rights of the Catholic Church, have adopted,
for weighty reasons during the last years, an attitude of
opposition toward the National Socialist movement, through
prohibitions and warnings, which were to remain in effect as
long and as far as those reasons remained valid.
“It should now be recognized that there are public and solemn
declarations issued by the highest representative of the Reich
Government—who at the same time is the authoritarian leader of
that movement—which acknowledge the inviolability of the
teachings of the Catholic faith and the unswerving mission and
rights of the Church and which expressly guarantee the full
validity of the legal pacts concluded between the several German
Länder and the Church.
“Without lifting the condemnation, implied in our previous
measures, of certain religious and ethical errors, the
Episcopate now believes it can be confident that those general
prohibitions and warnings prescribed need no longer be regarded
as necessary.”
The Catholic Center Party, yielding to these assurances and to pressure,
was dissolved on July 5, 1933. I refer to Document Number 2403-PS,
already in evidence as part of U.S. Document Book B, an excerpt from
_Documents of German Politics_, the official Nazi publication, a
document of which the Court can take judicial notice; and I quote from
the last five lines of Page 1 of the English translation, appearing on
Page 55 of the original German text, which states:
“Also the parties of German Catholicism which were supposed to
be most deeply rooted, had to bow to the law of the New Order.
On July 4, 1933, the Bavarian People’s Party (Document 27), and
on July 5, 1933, the Center Party (Document 29), published an
announcement of their dissolution.”
In spite of these evidences of confidence and co-operation or submission
on the part of the Catholics, the Nazi conspirators almost immediately
commenced a series of violations of the concordat. I offer in evidence
Document Number 3476-PS, Exhibit USA-567, being the Papal Encyclical,
“Mit brennender Sorge”—in German—by Pope Pius XI on March 14, 1937,
and also ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of all of it. I quote
from, the one-page English excerpt . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say 3476 or 3466?
COL. WHEELER: 3476.
THE PRESIDENT: We don’t seem to have that.
COL. WHEELER: That may be a mistake, Sir, for 3563; the number was
changed. The part of it which is in English in the Document Book, Sir,
is under 3280-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: 3280?
COL. WHEELER: The difficulty is that the German original came in after
the translation had been made from another source.
THE PRESIDENT: 3280(a)-PS?
COL. WHEELER: 3280 without the (a). It’s just a couple of paragraphs.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes; I see.
COL. WHEELER: These are found on Page 2, Paragraph 2, of the German
original, which is in evidence now, which was secretly reproduced at
Fulda from copies smuggled into Germany from Rome, and read definitely
from pulpits all over Germany. I quote:
“It discloses intrigues which from the beginning had no other
aim than a war of extermination. In the furrows in which we had
labored to sow the seeds of true peace, others, like the enemy
in Holy Scripture (Matt. xiii, 25), sowed the tares of
suspicion, discord, hatred, calumny, of secret and open
fundamental hostility to Christ and His Church, fed from a
thousand different sources and making use of every available
means. On them and on them alone and on their silent and vocal
protectors rests the responsibility for the fact that now, on
the horizon of Germany, there is to be seen, not the rainbow of
peace, but the threatening storm clouds of destructive religious
strife.
“Anyone who has even a grain of a sense of truth left in his
mind and even a shadow of a feeling of justice left in his heart
will have to admit that, in the difficult and eventful years
which followed the concordat, every word and every action of
ours was ruled by loyalty to the terms of the agreement; but
also he will have to recognize with surprise and deep disgust
that the unwritten law of the other party has been arbitrary
misinterpretation of agreements, circumvention of agreements,
weakening of the force of agreements and, finally, more or less
open violation of agreements.
“Only 10 days after the Concordat was signed. . . .”
THE PRESIDENT: None of this is in our book.
COL. WHEELER: That’s not in your book?
THE PRESIDENT: Not what you’ve been reading. The first paragraph, down
to the words “destructive religious wars” is in our book. The rest isn’t
in it.
COL. WHEELER: I think there must have been an error today then, Sir.
There was a second edition of that 3280, which contains the second
paragraph. I’ll have that substituted as soon as this is over.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): The United States
Prosecution said earlier in the proceedings that a certain part of the
material now being presented as evidence in the question of the
opposition to the churches was made available by the Vatican. The
Defendant Hans Frank has just sent me some questions which I do not want
to withhold from the Tribunal. The questions are these:
1. Is the Vatican a Signatory to the Charter of the International
Military Tribunal?
2. Did the Vatican deliver the material in an accusatory capacity?
3. Has the Vatican, acting as a co-prosecutor, identified itself with
the principles of these proceedings?
The Defendant Hans Frank adds by way of explanation that his continued
membership in the Roman Catholic Church depends on the reply to these
questions.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it desirable that the Tribunal understand your
objections. The first question that you ask is: Is the Vatican a
Signatory to the Charter? Is that right?
DR. SEIDL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Your second question was what? What was your second
question?
DR. SEIDL: The second question is: Whether the Vatican submitted the
material which is now being presented, acting as co-prosecutor?
THE PRESIDENT: And your third?
DR. SEIDL: The third question is—and it is addressed directly to the
Prosecution—whether the Vatican, as prosecutor, has identified itself
with the principles upon which this Trial is being conducted?
[_There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges conferred._]
THE PRESIDENT: In the opinion of the Tribunal the observations which
have just been made by counsel on behalf of the Defendant Frank are
entirely irrelevant, and any motion which they were intended to support
is denied. The Prosecution will therefore continue.
COL. WHEELER: I now offer in evidence the first of a number of documents
which the Vatican has supplied to the Prosecution in this case from its
own files and which authoritatively state the acts of suppression of the
Church by the Nazi conspirators. This first Vatican document, which
deals in part with acts of suppression within Germany, is Document
Number 3261-PS, Exhibit Number USA-568, a verbal note of the Secretariat
of State of His Holiness the Pope to the German Embassy, dated January
18, 1942. I read the certificate accompanying this document:
“The Vatican, November 13th, 1945.
“I, Domenico Tardini, Secretary of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical
Affairs, hereby certify that the attached document, consisting
of nine printed pages and entitled, ‘Verbal note of the
Secretariat of State of His Holiness to the German Embassy,’
January 18th, 1942, Pages 3-11, is a true and correct
translation into the English language from the Italian language
of a carbon copy of a document now in the possession of the
Secretariat of State of His Holiness, the original of which was
dispatched to the German Embassy.”—Signed—“Domenico Tardini.”
The paper in the document book, Your Honors, is a mimeographed copy of
the same printed document which we received from the Vatican. We did not
have enough printed documents to make them in the document books.
On Page 2 of the English mimeographed text of this verbal note,
Paragraphs 3 and 4—appearing on Page 2 of the German translation,
Paragraphs 3 and 4—the Papal Secretary of State describes, I quote:
“Measures and acts which gravely violate the rights of the
Church, being contrary not only to the existing concordats but
to the principles of international law ratified by the Second
Hague Conference . . .”
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say you were reading the third paragraph?
COL. WHEELER: Yes, Your Honor. It is the third full paragraph on Page 2.
It starts in the middle of the paragraph with the last word on the
seventh line of the third paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: It is very difficult for us to find it if you don’t tell
us it begins in the middle of the paragraph.
COL. WHEELER: The last word of that line is “measures”. It’s the seventh
line of the paragraph beginning “Yet, despite this keen desire,” Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see.
COL. WHEELER: “. . . but often—and this is much more grave—to
the very fundamental principles of Divine Law both natural and
positive.”
The next paragraph specifies these measures. I quote:
“Let it suffice to recall in this connection, among other
things, the changing of the Catholic state elementary schools
into undenominational schools; the permanent or temporary
closing of many minor seminaries, of not a few major seminaries,
and of some theological faculties; the suppression of almost all
the private schools and of numerous Catholic boarding schools
and colleges; the repudiation, decided upon unilaterally, of
financial obligations which the State, municipalities, and so
forth, had towards the Church; the increasing difficulties put
in the way of the activity of the religious orders and
congregations in the spiritual, cultural, and social field, and
above all the suppression of abbeys, monasteries, convents, and
religious houses in such great numbers that one is led to infer
a deliberate intention of rendering impossible the very
existence of the orders and congregations in Germany.”
The Nazis did not overlook other sects or denominations in their efforts
to suppress Christian religion in Germany. They persecuted the
“Bibelforscher” or Bible students . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps, if you are going on to another church, it would
be better to break off until tomorrow morning.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 8 January 1946 at 1000 hours._]
TWENTY-NINTH DAY
Tuesday, 8 January 1946
_Morning Session_
COL. WHEELER: The Nazis did not overlook other sects or denominations in
their efforts to suppress Christian religion in Germany. They persecuted
the Bibelforscher or International Bible Students as well. There has
already been introduced and read into evidence Document Number D-84,
Exhibit Number USA-236, showing that members of this sect were not only
prosecuted in the courts, but also seized and sent to concentration
camps, even after serving or remitting of their judicial sentences.
In Document Number 2928-PS, Exhibit Number USA-239, included in U.S.
Document Book A, further evidence of persecution of Bibelforscher
appears.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you are going a little bit fast. We are not going
to refer to D-84?
COL. WHEELER: I am not going to read from it, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you go to 2928-PS?
COL. WHEELER: 2928-PS; it is in the document book, Sir. This document is
an affidavit by Matthias Lex, Vice President of the national union of
shoemakers. In describing his experience in Dachau Concentration Camp he
says, and I quote from the third page of his affidavit:
“I include in the political prisoners the International Bible
Students”—Bibelforscher—“whose number I estimate at over 150.”
I want to read further from the last line of that page and the next few
lines of the next page:
“The following groups were kept entirely isolated: The members
of the so-called ‘punishment
companies,’”—Strafkompanien—“those who were in a concentration
camp for a second time, and after about 1937 also the
‘Bibelforscher’. Members of the ‘punishment companies’ were such
prisoners who had committed disciplinary or slight offenses
against the camp regulations. The following groups lived
separately but could mix with the other groups during the day,
either while working or while strolling through the camp:
“Political prisoners, Jews, anti-socials, gypsies, felons,
homosexuals, and, before 1937, also the International Bible
Students.”
I refer also to Document Number 1531-PS—this is not in the document
book—Exhibit Number USA-248, which is already in evidence. This was an
order by the RSHA in 1942 authorizing third-degree methods against
Jehovah’s Witnesses. That was read by Colonel Storey.
I now turn to acts of suppression in the annexed and occupied
territories. In Austria Bishop Rusch of Innsbruck has written an
illuminating report on this subject. I offer this sworn statement in
evidence, Document 3278-PS, Exhibit Number USA-569. This is a report on
the fighting of National Socialism in the Apostolic Administration of
Innsbruck-Feldkirch, of Tyrol and Vorarlberg. In this the Bishop
declares, and I start on the first page of the English text, and of the
German translation:
“After having seized power, National Socialism immediately
showed the tendency to exclude the Church from publicity.”
The expression “publicity”—this was written in English by the
Bishop—evidently means “public activities.” I continue with the quote:
“At Corpus Christi in 1938 the customary solemn procession was
forbidden. In the summer of the same year all ecclesiastical
schools and kindergartens were disbanded. Daily newspaper and
weekly reviews of Christian thinking were likewise removed. In
the same year all kinds of ecclesiastical organizations,
especially youth organizations such as Boy Scouts, were
disbanded, all activity forbidden.
“The effect of these prohibitions came soon: The clergy took
opposition against them, they could not do otherwise. Then a
great wave of priest arrests followed. About a fifth of them
were eventually arrested. Reasons for arrests were:
“1. The ‘pulpit-paragraph.’ When Party actions were mentioned or
criticized even in the humblest manner.
“2. The practice of taking care of young people. A specially
heavy prohibition was given in November 1939. Children’s or
youth’s mass or services were forbidden. Religion or faith
lessons were not allowed to be given in the church except
lessons of preparing for first Communion or confirmation.
Teaching of religion at school was very often forbidden without
any reason.
“The priest, according to his conscience, could not follow this
public proscription and this explained the great number of
arrests of priests. Finally, the priests were arrested on
account of their ‘caritative’ work. It was, for instance,
forbidden to give anything to foreigners or prisoners. A priest
was arrested because he gave a cup of coffee and bread to two
hungry Dutchmen. This ‘caritative’ act was seen to favor
elements foreign to the race.
“In 1939 and 1940 a new activity began. Cloisters and abbeys
were seized, disbanded, and many churches belonging to them
closed. Among these two convents were disbanded: the cloister of
the Dominican Sisters of Bludenz and that of the ‘Perpetual
Adoration’ of Innsbruck. In the latter the Sisters were dragged,
one by one, out of the cloister by the Gestapo. In the same way
ecclesiastical property such as association-houses, parish and
youth homes were seized. A list of these closed churches,
disbanded cloisters, and ecclesiastical institutions is
attached.
“Despite all these measures the results were not satisfactory.
Then priests were not only arrested, but also deported to
concentration camps. Eight priests of Tyrol and Vorarlberg have
been imprisoned, among them the Provicar Monseigneur Dr. Charles
Lampert. One died there on account of the ill-treatment, the
others returned. Provicar Lampert was released but required to
remain in Stettin, where later he was re-arrested and executed
in November 1944, after having been condemned to death by secret
proceedings.”
There is attached to this report a three-and-a-half-page list entitled,
“List of churches, convents, monasteries, and ecclesiastical objects of
Tyrol and Vorarlberg seized—that is, confiscated—and of the
institutions, confessional schools, _et cetera_, disbanded.” Unless the
Tribunal requires it, I shall not read these names.
I offer in evidence Document 3274-PS, Exhibit Number USA-570, received
from Cardinal Innitzer of Vienna and authenticated by him. This is the
first joint pastoral letter of the Archbishops and Bishops of Austria
after liberation, dated October 17, 1945. I quote from Page 1, second
paragraph of the English and German texts, which sums up the Nazi
conspirators’ campaign in Austria:
“A war which has raged terribly and horribly, like none other in
past epochs of the history of humanity is at an end. . . . At an
end also is an intellectual battle, the goal of which was the
destruction of Christianity and Church among our people; a
campaign of lies and treachery against truth and love, against
divine and human rights, and against international law.”
I quote further from the fourth and following paragraphs:
“Direct hostility to the Church was revealed in regulations
against orders and monasteries, Catholic schools and
institutions, against religious foundations and activities,
against the ecclesiastical recreation centers and institutions;
without the least rights to defend themselves they were declared
enemies of both people and state and their existence destroyed.
“Religious instruction and education of children and adolescents
were purposely limited, frequently entirely prevented. They
encouraged in every manner all efforts hostile to religion and
the Church and thus sought to rob the children and youth of our
people of the most valuable treasure of holy faith and of true
morality born of the Spirit of God. Unfortunately the attempt
succeeded in innumerable cases to the permanent detriment of
young people.
“Spiritual care of souls in churches and ecclesiastical houses,
in hospitals and other institutions was seriously obstructed. It
was made ineffectual in the Armed Forces and in the Labor
Service, in the transfer of youth to the country and, beyond
that, even in individual families and among numerous persons, to
say nothing of the prohibition of spiritual ministration to
people of another nationality and of other races.
“How often was the divine service as such, also sermons,
missions, Communion days, retreats, processions, pilgrimages,
restricted for the most impossible reasons and made entirely
impossible!
“Catholic literature, newspapers, periodicals, church papers,
religious writings were stopped, books and libraries destroyed.
“What an injustice occurred in the dissolution of many Catholic
societies, in the destruction of numerous church activities!
“Individual Catholic and Christian believers, whose religious
confession was allegedly free, were spied upon, criticized on
account of their belief, scorned on account of their Christian
activity. How many religious officials, teachers, public and
private employees, laborers, businessmen, and artisans, indeed,
even peasants were put under pressure and terror! Many lost
their jobs, some were pensioned off, others dismissed without
pension, demoted, deprived of their real professional activity.
Often enough such people who remained loyal to their convictions
were discriminated against, condemned to hunger or tortured in
concentration camps. Christianity and the Church were
continually scorned and exposed to hatred.
“The apostasy movement found every assistance. Every opportunity
was used to induce many to withdraw from the Church.”
In assessing responsibility for these acts of suppression in Austria,
the Court will recall that the Defendant Von Schirach was Gauleiter of
Vienna from 1940 to 1945.
I now come to the acts of suppression in Czechoslovakia, where, the
Court will recollect, the Defendant Von Neurath was Reich Protector for
Bohemia and Moravia from 1939 to 1943 and was succeeded by the Defendant
Frick. These acts have been summarized in an official Czech Government
report. I refer to Document 998-PS, Exhibit Number USA-91, already in
evidence. These are excerpts not previously read or referred to from the
“Czech Official Report for the Prosecution and Trial of the German Major
War Criminals by the International Military Tribunal Established
according to the Agreement of the Four Great Powers, of August 8, 1945.”
Since this is an official government document or report of one of the
United Nations, I ask that the Tribunal take judicial notice of it under
Article 21 of the Charter and I suggest that I be permitted to summarize
rather than read it.
It describes the maltreatment of Catholic priests—487 of whom were sent
to concentration camps as hostages—dissolution of religious orders,
suppression of religious instruction in Czech schools, suppression of
Catholic weeklies and monthlies, dissolution of the Catholic gymnastic
organization of 800,000 members, and seizure of Catholic Church
property. It describes the entire prohibition of the Czechoslovak
National Church and confiscation of all its property in Slovakia and its
crippling in Bohemia.
The report describes the severe restriction on freedom of preaching by
the Protestants and the persecution and imprisonment and execution of
ministers and the suppression of Protestant Church youth organizations
and theological schools and shows the complete subordination and later
dissolution of the Greek Orthodox Church. It states that all Evangelical
education was handed over to the civil authorities and many Evangelical
teachers lost their employment.
The repressive measures adopted by the Nazi conspirators in Poland
against the Christian Church were even more drastic and sweeping.
The Vatican documents now to be introduced describe persecutions of the
Catholic Church in Poland in three areas: First, the incorporated
territories, especially the Warthegau; second, the Government General;
and third, the incorporated Eastern territories.
The Court will recall that the incorporated territories comprised
territories adjacent to the old Reich, chiefly the Reich District
Wartheland or Warthegau, which included particularly the cities of
Poznan and Lodz and the Reich district Danzig-West Prussia.
The occupied Polish territories which were organized into the Government
General comprised the remainder of Poland, seized by the German forces
in 1939 and extending to the new boundary with the Soviets formed at
that time. This included Warsaw and Kraków. After the Nazis attacked the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in June 1941, the parts of old
Poland lying farther to the east and then overrun were included in the
so-called Occupied Eastern Territories.
For the purpose of tying the defendants’ responsibility for the
persecutions occurring in their respective areas, the Court will bear in
mind that the Defendant Frick was the official chiefly responsible for
the reorganization of the Eastern territories. The Defendant Frank was
head of the Government General from 1939 to 1945. The Defendant
Seyss-Inquart was Deputy Governor General there from 1939 to 1940. And
the Defendant Rosenberg was Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern
Territories from July 17, 1941 to the end.
I now offer in evidence Document Number 3263-PS, Exhibit Number USA-571,
headed, “Memorandum of the Secretariat of State to the German Embassy
regarding the religious situation in the ‘Warthegau,’ October 8, 1942.”
This document bears a certificate of authenticity from the Vatican
signed by the Papal Secretary of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs
corresponding to that accompanying Document 3261-PS, read in evidence a
few minutes ago. Unless the Court requires otherwise, I suggest that it
is not necessary to read each of these certificates, which are all
similar one to another. I quote from Document 3263-PS, the first
paragraph:
“For quite a long time the religious situation in the region
called ‘Warthegau’ gives cause for very grave and
ever-increasing anxiety. There, in fact, the Episcopate has been
little by little almost completely eliminated; the secular and
regular clergy have been reduced to proportions that are
absolutely inadequate, because they have been in large part
deported and exiled; the education of clerics has been
forbidden; the Catholic education of youth is meeting with the
greatest opposition; the nuns have been dispersed;
insurmountable obstacles have been put in the way of affording
people the help of religion; very many churches have been
closed; Catholic intellectual and charitable institutions have
been destroyed; ecclesiastical property has been seized.”
On March 2, 1943 the Cardinal Secretary of State addressed to the
Defendant Von Ribbentrop, Foreign Minister of the Reich, a note setting
forth in detail the persecution of bishops, priests, and other
ecclesiastics and the suppression of the exercise of religion in the
occupied Polish provinces. This document is so explicit and so
authoritative that it deserves extensive quotation. I accordingly offer
it in evidence: Document Number 3264-PS, Exhibit Number USA-572. It is
headed, “A Note of His Eminence the Cardinal Secretary of State to the
Foreign Minister of the Reich about the religious situation in the
‘Warthegau’ and in the other Polish provinces subject to Germany.” It
bears a Vatican certificate of authenticity like that of Document
3261-PS. It is signed, “L. Card. Maglione,” meaning “Luigi Cardinal
Maglione.” I quote from this note, starting with Page 1, the third
paragraph of the English mimeographed text and of the German
translation:
“The place where, above all, the religious situation, by its
unusual gravity, calls for special consideration is the
territory called the ‘Reichsgau Wartheland.’
“Six bishops resided in that region in August 1939; now there is
left only one. In fact, the Bishop of Lodz and his auxiliary
were, in the course of the year 1941, confined first in a small
district of the diocese and then expelled and exiled in the
‘Generalgouvernement.’
“Another bishop, Monseigneur Michael Kozal, Auxiliary and Vicar
General of Wloclawek, was arrested in the autumn of 1939,
detained for some time in a prison in the city and later in a
religious house in Lad, and finally was transferred to the
concentration camp at Dachau.
“Since His Eminence the Cardinal Archbishop of Gniezno and
Poznan and the Bishop of Wloclawek, who had gone away during the
period of military operations, were not allowed to return to
their Sees, the only bishop who now remains in the ‘Warthegau’
is His Excellency Monseigneur Valentine Dymek, Auxiliary of
Poznan; and he, at least up to November 1942, was interned in
his own house.”
I pass now to Page 2, fourth paragraph of the English text, the fifth
paragraph of the German text:
“If the lot of their Excellencies the Bishops has been a source
of anxiety for the Holy See, the condition of an immense number
of priests and members of religious orders has caused it, and
still causes it, no less grief.
“In the territory now called ‘Warthegau’ more than 2,000 priests
exercised their ministry before the war; they are now reduced to
a very small number.
“According to accounts received from various quarters by the
Holy See, in the first months of the military occupation not a
few members of the secular clergy were shot or otherwise put to
death, while others—some hundreds—were imprisoned or treated
in an unseemly manner, being forced into employments unbecoming
their state and exposed to scorn and derision.
“Then, while numbers of ecclesiastics were exiled or constrained
in some other way to take refuge in the ‘Generalgouvernement,’
many others were transferred to concentration camps. At the
beginning of October 1941 the priests from the dioceses of the
‘Warthegau’ detained in Dachau already numbered several
hundreds; but their number increased considerably in that month
following a sharp intensification of police measures which
culminated in the imprisonment and deportation of further
hundreds of ecclesiastics. Entire ‘Kreise’ (districts) remained
thus completely deprived of clergy. In the city of Poznan itself
the spiritual care of some 200,000 Catholics remained in the
hands of not more than four priests.
“No less painful was the fate reserved for the regular clergy.
Many religious were shot or otherwise killed; the great majority
of the others were imprisoned, deported, or expelled.
“In the same way far-reaching measures were taken against the
institutions preparing candidates for the ecclesiastical state.
The diocesan seminaries of Gniezno and Poznan, of Wloclawek, and
of Lodz were closed. The seminary in Poznan for the training of
priests destined to work among Polish Catholics abroad was also
closed.
“The novitiates and houses of formation of the religious orders
and congregations were closed.
“Not even the nuns were able to continue their charitable
activities without molestation. For them was set up a special
concentration camp at Bojanowo, where towards the middle of 1941
about 400 sisters were interned and employed in manual labor. To
a representation of the Holy See made through the Apostolic
Nunciature in Berlin (Memorandum N. 40.348 of June 11th, 1941)
your Reich Ministry for Foreign Affairs replied in the
Memorandum Pol. III 1886 of September 28 of the same year that
it was only a question of a temporary measure, taken with the
consent of the Reich lieutenant for Wartheland, in order to
supply the lack of housing for Polish Catholic sisters. In the
same memorandum it was admitted that as a result of
reorganization of charitable institutions many Catholic sisters
were without employment.
“But, in spite of the fact that this measure was declared to be
temporary, it is certain that towards the end of 1942 some
hundreds of nuns were still interned at Bojanowo. It is
established that for some time the religious were deprived even
of spiritual help.
“Likewise in the matter of education and religious instruction
of youth no attention was paid in the ‘Warthegau’ to the rights
of the Catholic Church.
“All the Catholic schools were suppressed.”
THE PRESIDENT: Who was the Foreign Minister of the Reich at the time
that document was sent?
COL. WHEELER: It was the Defendant Von Ribbentrop.
I turn to Page 4, the 10th paragraph of the English text, Page 5, 4th
paragraph of the German text:
“The use of the Polish language in sacred functions, and even in
the Sacrament of Penance, was forbidden. Moreover—and this is a
matter worthy of special mention and is at variance with the
natural law and with the dispositions accepted by the legal
systems of all nations—for the celebration of marriage between
Poles the minimum age limit was fixed at 28 years for men and 25
years for women.
“Catholic Action was so badly hit as to be completely destroyed.
The National Institute, which was at the head of the whole
Catholic Action movement in Poland, was suppressed; as a result
all the associations belonging to it, which were flourishing, as
well as all Catholic cultural, charity, and social service
institutions, were abolished.
“In the whole of the ‘Warthegau’ there is no longer any Catholic
press and not even a Catholic bookshop.
“Grave measures were repeatedly taken with regard to
ecclesiastical property.
“Many of the churches closed to public worship were turned over
to profane uses. From such an insult not even the Cathedrals of
Gniezno, Poznan, Wloclawek, and Lodz were spared. Episcopal
residences were confiscated, the real estate belonging to the
seminaries, convents, diocesan museums, libraries, and church
funds were confiscated or sequestered.”
I pass now to the third full paragraph on Page 5, a two-line paragraph:
“Even before ecclesiastical property was affected, the
allowances to the clergy had been abolished.”
Now, reading from Page 6, the fourth full paragraph of the English text:
“The administrative regulations published by the lieutenant’s
office for the application of the ordinance of September 13th,
1941 made the situation of the Catholics in that region, still
more difficult.
“For example, on November 19, 1941 came a decree of the Reich
lieutenant by which among other things it was set forth that, as
from the previous September 13th, the property of the former
juridical persons of the Roman Catholic Church should pass over
to the ‘Römisch-katholische Kirche deutscher Nationalität im
Reichsgau Wartheland’ insofar as, on the request of the
above-mentioned ‘Religionsgesellschaft’ such property shall be
recognized by the Reich lieutenant as non-Polish property.’ In
virtue of this decree practically all the goods of the Catholic
Church in the ‘Warthegau’ were lost.”
Now I pass to Page 7, the second full paragraph:
“If we pass from the ‘Warthegau’ to the other territories in the
East, we unfortunately find there, too, acts and measures
against the rights of the Church and of the Catholic faithful,
though they vary in gravity and extension from one place to
another.
“In the provinces which were declared annexed to the German
Reich and joined up with the Gaue of East Prussia, of Danzig
West Prussia and of Upper Silesia, the situation is very like
that described above in regard to seminaries, the use of the
Polish mother-tongue in sacred functions, charitable works,
associations of Catholic Action, the separation of the faithful
according to nationality. There, too, one must deplore the
closing of churches to public worship, the exile, deportation,
the violent death of not a few of the clergy (reduced by
two-thirds in the diocese of Culma and by at least a third in
the diocese of Katowice), the suppression of religious
instruction in the schools, and above all the complete
suppression in fact of the Episcopate. Actually, after the
Bishop of Culma, who had left during the military operations,
had been refused permission to return to his diocese, there
followed in February 1941 the expulsion of the Bishop of Plock
and his auxiliary, who both died later in captivity; the Bishop,
the venerable octogenarian Monseigneur Julian Anthony
Nowowiejski, died at Dzialdowo on May 28th, 1941, and the
auxiliary, Monseigneur Leo Wetmanski, ‘in a transit camp’ on
October 10th of the same year.
“In the territory called the ‘Generalgouvernement,’ as in the
Polish provinces which had been occupied by Soviet troops in the
period between September 1939 and June 1941, the religious
situation is such as to cause the Holy See lively apprehension
and serious preoccupation. Without pausing to describe the
treatment meted out in many cases to the clergy (priests
imprisoned, deported, and even put to death), the confiscation
of ecclesiastical property, the closing of churches, the
suppression even of associations and publications of simply and
exclusively religious character, the closing of the Catholic
secondary and higher schools and of the Catholic University of
Lublin, let it suffice to recall two series of specially grave
measures: those which affect the seminaries and those which
weigh on the Episcopate.
“When the buildings of the various seminaries had been
completely or in part occupied, the intention for some time
(November 1940-February 1941) was to reduce these institutions
for the training of priests to two—those of Kraków and
Sandomierz; then the others were permitted to reopen, but only
on condition that no new students were admitted, which in
practice inevitably means that all these institutions will soon
be closed.”
I skip one paragraph here.
“Mention has several times been made of ecclesiastics deported
or confined in concentration camps. The majority of them were
transferred to the Altreich, where their number already exceeds
a thousand.”
THE PRESIDENT: What was the “Altreich”?
COL. WHEELER: The Altreich is the Old Reich of Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
COL. WHEELER: “When the Holy See asked that they should be
liberated and be permitted to emigrate to neutral countries of
Europe or America (1940), the petition was refused; it was only
promised that they should all be collected in the concentration
camp at Dachau, that they should be dispensed from too hard
labor, and that some should be permitted to say Mass, which the
others could hear.
“The treatment of the ecclesiastics interned at Dachau, which,
for a certain time in 1941 was in fact somewhat mitigated,
worsened again at the end of that year. Particularly sorrowful
were the announcements which for many months in 1942 came from
that camp of the frequent deaths of priests, even of some young
priests among them.”
I pass by two paragraphs.
“Polish Catholics are not allowed to contract marriage in the
territory of the Altreich; just as requests for religious
instruction or instruction in preparation for confession and
Holy Communion for the children of these workers are, in
principle, not accepted.”
What happened to complaints—even from the Vatican—as to religious
affairs in the overrun territories is disclosed in Document Number
3266-PS, Exhibit Number USA-573, which I now offer in evidence. This is
a letter from the Cardinal Archbishop of Breslau to the Papal Secretary
of State, dated December 7, 1942. It bears a Vatican authentication
similar to those already read.
This letter lays at the door of the Party Chancellery the responsibility
for determining the policy and exercising final authority on religious
questions in the occupied territories. I quote from Page 1, the first
paragraph of this letter, and remind the Court that the Defendant
Bormann was at that time Chief of the Nazi Party Chancellery and that
the Defendant Kaltenbrunner was the Chief of the
Reichssicherheitshauptamt, the RSHA. I quote from Document 3266-PS,
beginning with the sixth line:
“About some of the gravest injuries inflicted on the Church, I
not only protested on each occasion as the individual incident
occurred, but I also made a most formal protest about them _in
globo_ in a document which, as spokesman of the Hierarchy, I
sent to the supreme ruler of the State and to the ministries of
the Reich on December 10th, 1941. Not a word by way of answer
has been sent to us.
“Your Eminence knows very well the greatest difficulty in the
way of opening negotiations comes from the overruling authority
which the ‘National Socialist Party Chancery’ exercises in
relation to the Chancery of the Reich and to the single Reich
ministries. This ‘Parteikanzlei’ directs the course to be
followed by the State, whereas the ministries and the
Chancellery of the Reich are obliged and compelled to adjust
their decrees to these directions. Besides, there is the fact
that the ‘supreme office for the security of the Reich,’ called
the ‘Reichssicherheitshauptamt’ enjoys an authority which
precludes all legal action and all appeals. Under it are the
‘secret offices for public security,’ called ‘Geheime
Staatspolizei’ (a title shortened usually to Gestapo), of which
there is one for each province. Against the decrees of this
central office and of the secret offices there is no appeal
through the courts, and no complaint made to the ministries has
any effect. Not infrequently the councillors of the ministries
suggest that they have not been able to do as they would wish to
because of the opposition of these Party offices. As far as the
executive power is concerned, the organization called the SS,
that is, ‘The Schutzstaffeln der Partei,’ is in practice
supreme. . . .
“On a number of very grave and fundamental issues we have also
presented our complaints to the supreme leader of the Reich, the
Führer. Either no answer is given, or it is apparently edited by
the above-mentioned Party Chancery, which does not consider
itself bound by the Concordat made with the Holy See.”
I now offer in evidence Document Number 3279-PS, Exhibit Number USA-574.
This is an excerpt from Charge Number 17 against the Defendant Hans
Frank, Governor General of Poland, entitled, “Maltreatment and
Persecution of the Catholic Clergy in the Western Provinces,” submitted
by the Polish Government under the terms of Article 21 of the
Four-Power-Agreement of August 8, 1945. This gives further figures
indicating the extent of the persecution of priests. I quote:
“The extract attached hereto and dealing with the ‘General
Conditions and Results of the Persecution’ is taken from the
text of Charge 17, Page 5, Paragraph IV, of the Polish
Government against the defendants named in the Indictment before
the International Military Tribunal, subject: ‘Maltreatment and
Persecution of the Catholic Clergy in the Incorporated Western
Provinces of Poland.’ It is a true translation into English of
the original Polish.
“It is submitted herewith to the International Military Tribunal
in accordance with Article 21 of the Charter of the Court.”
Signed: “Dr. Tadeusz Cyprian, Polish Deputy Representative on
the United Nations War Crimes Commission in London, signing on
behalf of the Polish Government and of the Main Commission for
Investigation of German War Crimes in Poland, whose seal I
hereby attach.”
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think you need read such certificates as that.
COL. WHEELER: This is the only one, Sir, that I have. I now read from
this extract:
“General Conditions and Results of the Persecution:
“11. The general situation of the clergy in the Archdiocese of
Poznan in the beginning of April 1940 is summarized in the
following words of Cardinal Hlond’s second report:
“Five priests shot; 27 priests confined in harsh concentration
camps at Stutthof and in other camps; 190 priests in prison or
in concentration camps at Bruczkow, Chludowo, Goruszki,
Kazimierz, Biskupi, Lad, Lubin, and Puszczykowo; 35 priests
seriously ill in consequence of ill-treatment; 122 parishes
entirely left without priests.
“12. In the Diocese of Chelmno, where about 650 priests were
installed before the war, only 3 percent were allowed to stay,
the 97 percent of them were imprisoned, executed, or put into
concentration camps.
“13. By January 1941 about 700 priests were killed, 3,000 were
in prison or concentration camps.”
I refer also to Document Number 3268(a)-PS, Exhibit Number USA-356,
excerpts from the allocution of Pope Pius XII to the Sacred College June
2, 1945, which has already been introduced into evidence and read from
extensively. I shall not read from that again. This gives some very
revealing figures concerning the priests and lay brothers confined in
the concentration camp at Dachau.
The Tribunal will recall, from the previous reading of this document,
the imprisonment of 2,800 priests and lay brothers in Dachau alone from
1940 to 1945, of whom all but about 800 were dead by April 1945,
including an auxiliary bishop.
This document presents a forceful summary of the principal steps in the
struggle of the Nazi conspirators against the Catholic Church.
In summation the Prosecution submits that the evidence presented to the
Court proves that the attempted suppression of the Christian churches in
Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland was an integral part of the
defendants’ conspiracy to eliminate internal opposition and otherwise to
prepare for and wage aggressive war and shows the same conspiratorial
pattern as their other War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.
COL. STOREY: If the Tribunal please, before we present the subject of
individual defendants, by agreement with our British colleagues, Major
Elwyn Jones will now present a brief subject entitled, “Aggression as a
Basic Nazi Idea.”
MAJOR F. ELWYN JONES (Junior Counsel for the United Kingdom): May it
please the Tribunal, it is now my duty to draw to the Tribunal’s
attention a document which became the statement of faith of these
defendants. I refer to Hitler’s _Mein Kampf_. It is perhaps appropriate
that this should be considered at this stage of the Trial just before
the Prosecution presents to the Tribunal the evidence against the
individual defendants under Counts One and Two of the Indictment, for
this book, _Mein Kampf_, gave to the defendants adequate foreknowledge
of the unlawful aims of the Nazi leadership. It was not only Hitler’s
political testament; by adoption it became theirs.
This book, _Mein Kampf_, might be described as the blueprint of Nazi
aggression. Its whole tenor and content enforce the Prosecution’s
submission that the Nazi pursuit of aggressive designs was no mere
accident arising out of the immediate political situation in Europe and
the world which existed during the period of Nazi power. _Mein Kampf_
establishes unequivocally that the use of aggressive war to serve their
aims in foreign policy was part of the very creed of the Nazi Party.
A great German philosopher has said that “ideas have hands and feet.” It
became the deliberate aim of these defendants to see to it that the
ideas, doctrines, and policies of _Mein Kampf_ should become the active
faith and guide for action of the German nation, and particularly of its
malleable youth.
As my American colleagues have already submitted to the Tribunal, from
1933 to 1939 an extensive indoctrination in the ideas of _Mein Kampf_
was pursued in the schools and universities of Germany, as well as in
the Hitler Youth under the direction of the Defendant Baldur von
Schirach and in the SA and SS and amongst the German population as a
whole by the agency of the Defendant Rosenberg.
A copy of this book _Mein Kampf_ was officially presented to all newly
married couples in Germany, and I now hand to the Tribunal such a
wedding present from the Nazis to the newlyweds of Germany and for the
purposes of the record it will be Exhibit GB-128 (Document Number
D-660). The Tribunal will see that the dedication on the flyleaf of that
copy reads:
“To the newly-married couple, Friedrich Rosebrock and Else née
zum Beck, with best wishes for a happy and blessed marriage.
Presented by the Communal Administration on the occasion of
their marriage on the 14th of November 1940. For the Mayor, the
Registrar.”
The Tribunal will see, at the bottom of the page opposite to the
contents page, that that edition of _Mein Kampf_, which was the 1940
edition, brought the number of copies of _Mein Kampf_ published to
6,250,000. This was the scale upon which this book was distributed. It
was blasphemously called “the bible of the German people”.
As a result of the efforts of the defendants and their confederates,
this book poisoned a generation and distorted the outlook of a whole
people.
As the SS General Von dem Bach-Zelewski indicated yesterday, if you
preach for years, as long as 10 years, that the Slav peoples are
inferior races and that the Jews are subhuman, then it must logically
follow that the killing of millions of these human beings is accepted as
a natural phenomenon.
From _Mein Kampf_ the way leads directly to the furnaces of Auschwitz
and the gas chambers of Maidanek.
What the commandments of _Mein Kampf_ were I shall seek to indicate to
the Tribunal by quotations from the book, which are set out in the
extracts which I trust are now before the Tribunal. Those extracts are
set out in the order in which I shall, with the Tribunal’s permission,
refer to them.
Now these quotations fall into two main categories. The first category
is that of general expression of Hitler’s belief in the necessity of
force as the means of solving international problems. The second
category is that of Hitler’s more explicit declarations on the policy
which Germany must pursue.
Most of the quotations in the second category come from the last three
Chapters, 13, 14, and 15 of Part II of _Mein Kampf_, in which Hitler’s
views on foreign policy were expounded. The significance of that fact
will be realized if the Tribunal looks at the German edition of _Mein
Kampf_. The Tribunal will observe that Part II of _Mein Kampf_ was first
published in 1927, that is to say, less than 2 years after the Locarno
Pact and within a few months of Germany’s entry into the League of
Nations. The date of the publication of these passages, therefore,
brands them as a repudiation of the policy of international co-operation
embarked upon by Stresemann and as a deliberate defiance of the attempt
to establish, through the League of Nations, the rule of law in
international affairs.
First I place before the Tribunal some quotations showing the general
views held by Hitler and accepted and propagated by the defendants about
war and aggression generally. The first quotation, from Page 556 of
_Mein Kampf_, reads:
“The soil on which we now live was not a gift bestowed by Heaven
on our forefathers. But they had to conquer it by risking their
lives. So also in the future our people will not obtain
territory and therewith the means of existence as a favor from
any other people, but will have to win it by the power of a
triumphant sword.”
On Page 145 Hitler revealed his own personal attitude to war. Of the
years of peace before 1914 he wrote:
“Thus I used to think it an ill-deserved stroke of bad luck that
I had arrived too late on this terrestrial globe, and I felt
chagrined at the idea that my life would have to run its course
along peaceful and orderly lines. As a boy I was anything but a
pacifist and all attempts to make me so proved futile.”
Generally, Hitler wrote of war in this way. On Page 162 we find:
“In regard to the part played by humane feeling, Moltke stated
that in time of war the essential thing is to get a decision as
quickly as possible and that the most ruthless methods of
fighting are at the same time the most humane. When people
attempt to answer this reasoning by ‘highfalutin’ talk about
aesthetics, _et cetera_, only one answer can be given. It is
that the vital questions involved in the struggle of a nation
for its existence must not be subordinated to any aesthetic
consideration.”
How faithfully these precepts of ruthlessness were followed by the
defendants the Prosecution will prove in the course of this Trial.
Hitler’s assumption of an inevitable law of struggle for survival linked
up in Chapter 11 of Book I of _Mein Kampf_, with the doctrine of Aryan
superiority over other races and the right of Germans, in virtue of this
superiority, to dominate and use other peoples as instruments for their
own ends. The whole of Chapter 11 of _Mein Kampf_ is dedicated to this
master race theory, and, indeed, many of the later speeches of Hitler,
his addresses to his generals and so forth, were mainly repetitive of